63. Admissibility of electronic records.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory which is produced by a computer or any communication device or otherwise stored, recorded or copied in any electronic form (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:—
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer or communication device during the period over which the computer or Communication device was used regularly to create, store or process information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer or communication device;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer or Communication device in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer or communication device was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer or Communication device in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3) Where over any period, the function of creating, storing or processing information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by means of one or more computers or communication device, whether—
(a) in standalone mode; or
(b) on a computer system; or
(c) on a computer network; or
(d) on a computer resource enabling information creation or providing information processing and storage; or
(e) through an intermediary,
all the computers or communication devices used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer or communication device; and references in this section to a computer or communication device shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceeding where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things shall be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted for admission, namely:—
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer or a communication device referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3);
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate,
and purporting to be signed by a person in charge of the computer or communication device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) and an expert shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it in the certificate specified in the Schedule.
(5) For the purposes of this section,—
(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer or communication device if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer or communication device whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment or by other electronic means as referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3).
Tag: Evidence Act 65B – Admissibility of electronic records
State of Karnataka Vs T.Naseer @ Thadiantavida Naseer on 6 Nov 2023
A division bench of the Apex Court held that when the original electronic devices were already produced and marked MOs, there was no need to produce the certificate under Section 65-B of the Act.
From Para 15,
State of Karnataka Vs T.Naseer @ Thadiantavida Naseer on 6 Nov 202315. Fair trial in a criminal case does not mean that it should be fair to one of the parties. Rather, the object is that no guilty should go scot-free and no innocent should be punished. A certificate under Section 65-B of the Act, which is sought to be produced by the prosecution is not an evidence which has been created now. It is meeting the requirement of law to prove a report on record. By permitting the prosecution to produce the certificate under Section 65B of the Act at this stage will not result in any irreversible prejudice to the accused. The accused will have full opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the prosecution. This is the purpose for which Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is there. The object of the Code is to arrive at truth. However, the power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised to subserve the cause of justice and public interest. In the case in hand, this exercise of power is required to uphold the truth, as no prejudice as such is going to be caused to the accused.
Santhosh Shat Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 06 Aug 2024
A single Judge of Karnataka High Court held that, non-filing of certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act to mark the electronic evidence is a curable defect and at any time during the trail a certificate can be produced.
From Para 6,
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that non-filing of certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act to markthe electronic evidence is a curable defect. It is not that the document would not be entertainable at all, as at any time duringthe trail a certificate can be produced. He would contend that the petitioner has indulged in heinous act of sexual assault on the student, who was at that point in time 14 years old, being her teacher. Therefore, this Court on any ground should not interfere with the orders that are passed by the concerned Court, which are in tune with law and not contrary to law.
From Para 9,
The objection is that the CD could not have been marked in evidence, as there is no certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and if there is no such certificate it does not become an evidence and, therefore, marking of compact disc should be rejected. In the light of the objection so made by the petitioner, the prosecution filed additional charge sheet and appended this video along with a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act citing it as additional material to be marked through PWs-1, 2 and 3. Here again the petitioner objects contending that the certificate under Section 65-B is not by the Competent Authority.
From Paras 11 and 12,
Santhosh Shat Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 06 Aug 2024The Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgments, would hold that electronic evidence can be marked at any time during the trial. The certificate under Section 65-B can be produced, which would neither vitiate the trial conducted on the basis of the electronic evidence nor enure to the benefit of the accused, to contend that no proceedings should be permitted to be proceeded further on the marking of the electronic evidence. The Apex Court in the case of T. NASEER supra has clearly held that Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., is in the statute only for this purpose, as it is a voyage towards discovery of truth. Under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., marking of document, examination, re-examination, cross-examination and further cross-examination can take place. Therefore, the first glorified submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner tumbles down, as the evidence that is let in being the compact disc, without attaching to it a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, does not and did not vitiate the proceedings.
12. It appears that due to serious objection of the petitioner, the prosecution took recourse to another route of marking it by way of supplementary charge sheet. In fact what is produced is not a supplementary charge sheet after further investigation as is done in the normal parlance. It is termed as supplementary charge sheet, but what it appends to it is only the compact disc, with the certificate under Section 65-B. This cannot give a right in favour of the petitioner to contend that after the commencement of evidence there cannot be production of supplementary charge sheet. While
there can be no quarrel about the contention of the petitioner that once evidence would commence after framing of charges, there cannot be a supplementary charge sheet, as that right ceases or freezes in favour of the prosecution, the day charges are framed. Alteration of charge can happen at any time during the trial under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., but not an additional charge sheet. In the case at hand, it is not an additional charge sheet or a supplementary charge sheet. Only the compact disc is marked along with the certificate, that too because the petitioner objected contending that the compact disc could not be marked without Section 65-B certificate. The submissions of the learned High Court Government Pleader overpowers what the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended, as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner runs counter to what the Apex Court has held in the judgments supra.
Santhanam and Anr Vs State and Anr on 20 Sep 2021
A saga of illicit relationship of 5 years between two advocates is twisted into a tale of rape!!!
Santhanam and Anr Vs State and Anr on 20 Sep 2021Citations :
Other Sources :
Rakesh Kumar Singla Vs Union of India on 14 Jan 2021
Punjab High Court granted Regular Bail on the following basis:
- the self inculpatory statement given to police cannot be relied upon
- no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is available at the present moment to authenticate the said messages
- The investigation in the matter is complete and the challan stands presented and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars.
Anvar P.V Vs P.K.Basheer and Ors on 18 September 2014
A 3-judge bench laid down the law to be followed in respect of electronic evidence as a secondary evidence.
Sec 65B of Evidence Act is a complete code in itself.
19. Proof of electronic record is a special provision introduced by the IT Act amending various provisions under the Evidence Act. The very caption of Section 65A of the Evidence Act, read with Sections 59 and 65B is sufficient to hold that the special provisions on evidence relating to electronic record
shall be governed by the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. That is a complete code in itself. Being a special law, the general law under Sections 63 and 65 has to yield.
Special Law Prevails over General Law
22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted herein before, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65A and 65B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this court in Navjot Sandhu case (supra), does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.
Key Paragraph
24. The situation would have been different had the appellant adduced primary evidence, by making available in evidence, the CDs used for announcement and songs. Had those CDs used for objectionable songs or announcements been duly got seized through the police or Election Commission and had the same been used as primary evidence, the High Court could have played the same in court to see whether the allegations were true. That is not the situation in this case. The speeches, songs and announcements were recorded using other instruments and by feeding them into a computer, CDs were made therefrom which were produced in court, without due certification. Those CDs cannot be admitted in evidence since the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not satisfied. It is clarified that notwithstanding what we have stated herein in the preceding paragraphs on the secondary evidence on electronic record with reference to Section 59, 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance of the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Citations: [2015 MHLJ SC 2 135], [2015 RD 129 112], [2014 GUJ LH 3 305], [2014 KERLT 4 104], [2015 SUPREME 3 453], [2015 AIR SC 180], [2014 JT 10 459], [2015 SCC L&S 1 108], [2015 AWC SC 1 156], [2015 SCC CRI 1 24], [2015 ALR 111 811], [2014 SCC 10 473], [2015 JCC SC 1 214], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 732], [2014 AIOL 574], [2014 SLT 8 223], [2015 MPLJ SC 1 507], [2015 SCC CIV 1 27], [2015 KARLJ 1 547], [2014 SCALE 10 660], [2015 ALT CRI 3 161]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187283766/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af58e4b01497114161f4
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on 14 Jul 2020
This is the order which cited Shafhi judgment here, to larger bench for reconsideration, since there was a conflicting precedent, in Anvar P,V.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on 26 July, 2019Here is the last Order, wherein Arguments have concluded and the Judgment was reserved.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on 03 March 2020Here is the final Judgment authored by Justice R.F.Nariman.
Relevant portions:
From Para 52: Accused must be given copy of all documents that prosecution relies upon.
52. It is pertinent to recollect that the stage of admitting documentary evidence in a criminal trial is the filing of the charge-sheet. When a criminal court summons the accused to stand trial, copies of all documents which are entered in the charge-sheet/final report have to be given to the accused. Section 207 of the CrPC, which reads as follows, is mandatory. Therefore, the electronic evidence, i.e. the computer output, has to be furnished at the latest before the trial begins. The reason is not far to seek; this gives the accused a fair chance to prepare and defend the charges levelled against him during the trial. The general principle in criminal proceedings therefore, is to supply to the accused all documents that the prosecution seeks to rely upon before the commencement of the trial. The requirement of such full disclosure is an extremely valuable right and an essential feature of the right to a fair trial as it enables the accused to prepare for the trial before its commencement.
From Para 54: When should the certificate u/s 65B be filed?
54. Therefore, in terms of general procedure, the prosecution is obligated to supply all documents upon which reliance may be placed to an accused before commencement of the trial. Thus, the exercise of power by the courts in criminal trials in permitting evidence to be filed at a later stage should not result in serious or irreversible prejudice to the accused. A balancing exercise in respect of the rights of parties has to be carried out by the court, in examining any application by the prosecution under Sections 91 or 311 of the CrPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act.
Depending on the facts of each case, and the Court exercising discretion after seeing that the accused is not prejudiced by want of a fair trial, the Court may in appropriate cases allow the prosecution to produce such certificate at a later point in time. If it is the accused who desires to produce the requisite certificate as part of his defence, this again will depend upon the justice of the case – discretion to be exercised by the Court in accordance with law.
From Para 59,
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on 14 July 202059. We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. (supra), and incorrectly “clarified” in Shafhi Mohammed (supra). Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law. Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D 426, which has been followed in a number of the judgments of this Court, can also be applied. Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if lead in the manner stated and not otherwise. To hold otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose.
Citations: [
Other Source links:
The Bombay High Court judgment which was challenged at Supreme Court is here.
